On gun control, immigration, and Hagel, the president's biggest roadblocks are Democrats.

The White Houses ambitious agenda on gun control, immigration reform, and, perhaps, even climate change is a sign that President Obama believes he locked up precious political capital with his reelection and intends to spend it quickly. But that isnt welcome news to many of the Democrats who need him the most in the short term--the seven Democratic senators in conservative states facing tough reelection bids.

Just one week into the new year, Obama has already hit some unpleasant stumbling blocks with his own party. On gun control, the White House is now calculating that it will be exceedingly difficult to pass broad measures, The New York Times reports, a sharp U-turn from its optimism heading into the new year. Senators from the presidents own party are the ones giving him trouble over his nominee for Defense secretary, former GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel, with one of the presidents most partisan backers privately expressing doubt about whether hell support his nomination.

And on Friday, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., announced his retirement, making it even more likely that a West Virginia Senate seat will turn Republican for the first time since 1959. Rockefellers decision to step down early may give him more flexibility to vote with the White House on its pet initiatives, but it creates major problems for the Democrats looking to succeed him. The White Houses planned agenda for the coming year is awfully inhospitable for a Democrat looking to keep his or her distance from the national party. (Notably, newly minted Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Michael Bennet, in a statement, said he is confident the party will elect an independent-minded Democrat to a seat.)

This is just the tip of the iceberg. To maintain their Senate majority in 2014, Democrats need to hold onto seven seats being contested on inhospitable turf--Louisiana, Arkansas, Alaska, Montana, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Dakota. Obama holds solid approval ratings nationally but, given the state of affairs in our polarized country, is in much more tenuous shape down South. The strategic positioning of Democratic Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor or Arkansas, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, and Mark Begich of Alaska will be fascinating to watch over the next year. Immigration, for example, is probably a winning issue for the president overall, but it will be a much tougher sell with Democrats in conservative states and districts. Rockefeller took the easy way out in stepping down.

On gun control, immigration, and Hagel, the president's biggest roadblocks are Democrats.

The White Houses ambitious agenda on gun control, immigration reform, and, perhaps, even climate change is a sign that President Obama believes he locked up precious political capital with his reelection and intends to spend it quickly. But that isnt welcome news to many of the Democrats who need him the most in the short term--the seven Democratic senators in conservative states facing tough reelection bids.

Just one week into the new year, Obama has already hit some unpleasant stumbling blocks with his own party. On gun control, the White House is now calculating that it will be exceedingly difficult to pass broad measures, The New York Times reports, a sharp U-turn from its optimism heading into the new year. Senators from the presidents own party are the ones giving him trouble over his nominee for Defense secretary, former GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel, with one of the presidents most partisan backers privately expressing doubt about whether hell support his nomination.

And on Friday, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., announced his retirement, making it even more likely that a West Virginia Senate seat will turn Republican for the first time since 1959. Rockefellers decision to step down early may give him more flexibility to vote with the White House on its pet initiatives, but it creates major problems for the Democrats looking to succeed him. The White Houses planned agenda for the coming year is awfully inhospitable for a Democrat looking to keep his or her distance from the national party. (Notably, newly minted Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Michael Bennet, in a statement, said he is confident the party will elect an independent-minded Democrat to a seat.)

This is just the tip of the iceberg. To maintain their Senate majority in 2014, Democrats need to hold onto seven seats being contested on inhospitable turf--Louisiana, Arkansas, Alaska, Montana, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Dakota. Obama holds solid approval ratings nationally but, given the state of affairs in our polarized country, is in much more tenuous shape down South. The strategic positioning of Democratic Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor or Arkansas, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, and Mark Begich of Alaska will be fascinating to watch over the next year. Immigration, for example, is probably a winning issue for the president overall, but it will be a much tougher sell with Democrats in conservative states and districts. Rockefeller took the easy way out in stepping down.

Id argue that given Democratic congressional supermajorities in his first two years and the lingering unpopularity of the Republican Party, he held the potential to accomplish a lot more--and in a more bipartisan fashion, as well.

The fact is the Democrats didn't have a supermajority in the Senate for two years and didn't need one in the House. The 111th Congress began with 55 Democratic Senators and two independents that caucus with them. The Democrats managed to get to the magic 58 + 2 Senators from July 7, 2009 to August 25, 2009 and from September 25, 2009 to February 4, 2010. I see 1 month, 18 days and 4 months, 9 days there, so the Democrats only had a supermajority for less than 6 months. That isn't 2 years, so your article's analysis is based on a lie and exaggerates the supermajority by more than a factor of 4. The Republican Senators tied up every piece of legislation and played games to slow the Senate down.

Now, the House has such a majority of Republicans that they can obstruct, even if the Senate starts compromising.

As far as Obama's agenda and politics goes, consider this analysis! All Obama and the Democrats have to do is propose reforms and leave it up to Congress to pass or not pass them. If Congress tries to play those games in his second term, let them pay the political price for their failure to act. Obama has the veto pen and I doubt he would use it on legislation so popular that they would override his veto.

Take a look at what's happening now in this country and consider that the climate change issue could easily blowup in the Republicans face. If we don't get some good rain in 3 months, those mostly Republican breadbasket farmers may lose another year. When people start paying for their mistakes, they soon learn not to make them.

The Democrats can propose immigration reform and if the Republicans block it, they lose the Hispanic vote.

If you see political problems over the Hagel nomination, you don't know politics.

Control of the Senate requires 60 votes to truly be control and the Republicans aren't going to get 60 votes in the next election and the political capital to override Obama's vetos.

I really thought he was going to get illegal alien amnesty through Congress, but his failed attempt to push another gun ban on law abiding citizens has likely ruined any chance of that.

Click to expand...

I don't expect any logic out of the right-wing, they're bought off by special interests.

Does or did your state have restrictions on magazine sizes for hunting?

Do you lack the imagination to figure out a way to prevent assault weapons from getting into the hands of Mexican drug cartels or unstable Americans?

It's not hard to think up logical solutions that allow citizens to own weapons and protect law abiding citizens in the process. You can legally own an operational machine, if you go through the procedures to own it.

I really thought he was going to get illegal alien amnesty through Congress, but his failed attempt to push another gun ban on law abiding citizens has likely ruined any chance of that.

Click to expand...

I don't expect any logic out of the right-wing, they're bought off by special interests.

Does or did your state have restrictions on magazine sizes for hunting?

What does hunting have to do with defense, do you want soldiers to limit their magazines also? After all no one needs superior fire power, RIGHT?

Do you lack the imagination to figure out a way to prevent assault weapons from getting into the hands of Mexican drug cartels or unstable Americans?

Maybe Eric Holder could stop shipping them down there.

It's not hard to think up logical solutions that allow citizens to own weapons and protect law abiding citizens in the process. You can legally own an operational machine, if you go through the procedures to own it.

Click to expand...

Maybe we should require everyone to go through a class to buy CFL light bulbs, mercury is a hazardous material after all. Come on let's hear it for requiring a license for anything that can hurt some one, after all hammers and clubs kill more people than rifles.

I really thought he was going to get illegal alien amnesty through Congress, but his failed attempt to push another gun ban on law abiding citizens has likely ruined any chance of that.

Click to expand...

Do you lack the imagination to figure out a way to prevent assault weapons from getting into the hands of Mexican drug cartels or unstable Americans?

Click to expand...

First I'd stop the ATF and the Obama Justice Department from sending them over the border gift wrapped, tied in a bow with a card address to the cartels.

While at the same time OBAMA AND CLINTON bemoan the terrible flow of firearms into Mexico THAT FAST AND FURIOUS WAS CONTRIBUTING TOO!

​

At the same time all you gun grabbing hacks get your talking points and marching orders to flood these boards with that same "90%" crap to push gun control.

With one hand you help feed a crisis, so with the other hand you can point to that same crisis to push your agenda.

And that's the Obama/Chicago way.

I think that would be a magnificent starting point, how about you?

Click to expand...

If you weren't such a hack you would know they didn't send them to Mexico and just used the weapons to track where they were going. The problem was lack of regulation for sales made by gun dealers and gun shows.

I noticed how you avoided the point about limits on rounds during hunting. Where is your Second Amendment rights there?

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!